Stephen B. Oates Books

Oates provides an overview of the civil war comparable to many other texts but where he earns his five stars is on the two chapters on John Brown. This book was part of a mega-load of information I gathered for a thesis during my graduate studies. In the texts I gathered John Brown was either an immortal hero or a psychopathic murderer. Each author found Brown either right or wrong. Where Oates is an exception is that he examined past works on Brown, providing the arguments for good or bad and then gave the documented facts for the reader to come to their conclusions. Consequently, all former texts had flaws and omissions because authors chose a side of this controversial figure and wrote accordingly. Oates bounces from book to book filling in holes and striking what is myth and what is factless opinion. So far in my findings this is the best unbiased look at the life of John Brown. It should be read following a biography on Brown as Oates does not write a life story but rather sifts through the flaws of myths and heroism.

This work of essays about Civil War era people isn't well done at all. While some material, especially on Lincoln, is good the tome lags in many areas. For example, the author entertains the asinine theory that the Southern states were plotting to extend slavery into the North prior to the Civil War. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Also the author ignores the possibility that the reason that the South seceded from the Union was not that they didn't believe Lincoln's promise about not interfering with slavery but that they were afraid of loosing the balance of power in the senate. This scenario would have surely happened if slavery was prevented from spreading. Another example of how lackluster the book is the chapter on the Old West included for no apparent reason other than to provide the author an opportunity to needlessly attack John Wayne, Nixon, and Paul Harvey about individualism. The author contends that it didn't exist in the Old West but he is wrong. While certain things brought people together, most settlers were too far away to do this on a daily basis. This is a prime reason why the pioneers were such easy pickings for Indian war parties, outlaws, and others like them. General Sherman, who was in charge for the defense of the West for a time, stated this as a prime reason why the army couldn't protect all of the settlers. There are many more books worth a serious reader's time than this book.

This book is one of the worst I've come across about the Civil War era. The chapters on Lincoln will suffice in showing the overall value of the work. While some characterizations of Lincoln are on the money, the author completely and inexcusably overlooks the fallacies in Lincoln's views on slavery. For example, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates the author ignores Lincoln's view that blacks should be free yet shouldn't vote, intermarry, serve in the militia etc. The author also invokes too many times the worn-out cliche of the stereotypical southerner who wants to lynch blacks at every turn. Also a negative point in the book is the weird inclusion of a chapter on the myth of the Old West. The author strangely attacks John Wayne and Paul Harvey (!?) for daring to believe that individualism reigned in the Old West. Also the author exposes some liberal racism in implying that blacks and Indians don't need to "make it on the own." Pick up some other book on the Civil War and it will surely be worth your time.

This was an assigned book for my college History course, and I can say that I pity all those poor students who have to read this book too. While the content is actually pretty decent, each section is far too long. I had to drink two cups of coffee for every essay, and even then if I didn't have notes I wouldn't have remembered a word. All I can say is highlight what's important, and learn to speed-read!